Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK82276, Marguerite Downing, Judge.
Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Byron G. Shibata, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TURNER, P.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Lamont K. is the father of L.K. who was found to be a person described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. The dependency finding was due to physical abuse of L.K. by the father. After awarding sole legal and physical custody to L.K.’s mother, Stephanie C., (“the mother”) and granting the father monitored visitation, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction. The father appeals the custody and visitation orders. We affirm the orders in all respects.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
II. BACKGROUND
In April 2010, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (“the department”) detained seven-old L.K. after receiving a referral that the father was abusing L.K. and Alex L. (then 11 years old). Laila K. (then 8 months old) is the father’s daughter. L.K. is the father’s son but Alex is not. Lashaye L., who is the mother of Alex and Laila, is not a party to this appeal. On May 17, 2010, the department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of L.K., Laila and Alex. Pursuant to mediation, the parents agreed to submit to the petition as amended as to counts a-1, b-1 and j-1. It was also agreed that the petition would be sustained as to count b-3. The remaining counts were to be dismissed. Pursuant to the mediation agreement, the parties agreed the following allegations in the petition were sustained: on prior occasions, the father, struck L.K.’s head and body with a belt; on or around April 22, 2010, L.K. suffered bruises to his body and injury to his head; on prior occasions, the father inappropriately disciplined Alex with a belt; Laila’s mother, Lashaye, knew of the physical abuse and failed to take action to protect L.K. or Alex; L.K. and Laila’s then 10-month old half sibling, Summer K., is a prior dependent of the juvenile court due to physical abuse by the father; the father’s physical abuse of L.K. and inappropriate discipline of Alex and Lashaye’s failure to protect the child placed the children at risk of physical and emotional harm; the father has a history of domestic violence against three women including the mother; the father had a history of domestic violence against two former female companions which resulted in battery convictions; and the father’s history of domestic violence placed L.K. at risk of harm.
The parties agreed that Alex and Laila would remain with Lashaye. There was to be no physical discipline of the children. Lashaye was to receive individual counseling. There was no agreement about the father’s reunification services or visitation. But, the father was to participate in parenting, anger management and individual counseling to address case issues. On May 24, 2010, L.K. was released to the custody of his mother in Alabama.
On September 28, 2010, the father attended the jurisdiction hearing. The mother, who was in Alabama, was not present. Pursuant to the mediation agreement, the juvenile court sustained counts a-1, b-1 and b-3 as amended by interlineations. The juvenile court found L.K. to be a child described under section 300. Jurisdiction was terminated and L.K. was placed with his mother pursuant to a family court order. The mother was given sole legal and physical custody. The father was granted monitored visitation.
III. FACTUAL MATTERS
A. Detention Report
The detention report related: the father had a substantial history with the department dating back to 1998 involving five children; the father also had criminal convictions for fighting in public, battery on a non-cohabiting former spouse, vehicular hit and run and property damage; in July 1998, the father punched his then girlfriend in the face giving her a fat lip and a black eye; while the girlfriend was holding a young child, the father grabbed the baby’s left arm and swung the infant across the room; and the baby suffered a fractured left arm. In January 2000, a referral was made due to evidence of a: bruise on a youngster’s upper thigh; bite mark on her thigh; and bite mark on her shoulder.
A March 2000 referral with a child from a different mother, P.W., resulted in substantiated allegations of emotional abuse of the father’s alleged son with her. There was also a substantiated allegation of physical abuse against P.W.’s daughter. It was also substantiated that the father had physically abused P.W.’s other daughter. One of P.W.’s youngsters stated the father bit a sibling on the arm. The youngster also saw the father hit P.W.
The father lived with Layshae, Alex, L.K. and Laila. L.K.’s mother resided in Alabama. The detention report states, “[L.K.] stated he receives a whooping from [the] father....” The father usually hit L.K. with a belt on the buttocks and legs. L.K. had to take his clothes and underwear off while he was being physically disciplined. L.K. indicated that he usually had bruises and marks after being hit with a belt. Because of the pain inflicted by the father, L.K. was afraid of being disciplined.
The father had recently disciplined L.K. for lying about school work. The father struck L.K., who was unclothed, on the buttocks and leg. L.K. had bruises and marks. The father hit L.K. in the head with the belt. L.K. stated there was a bump on his head. L.K. denied tripping and hitting himself on a wall while he was being disciplined. The social worker, Tiffany Heard, saw a small laceration on the right side of L.K.’s head. L.K. stated he had been hit in the head while being disciplined. L.K. was also disciplined with a belt a couple of weeks prior to the interview. L.K. was hit with the belt for stealing $100 from his aunt’s purse. The father said things like “ass, ” “punk” or “bitch” to L.K. The use of such language made L.K. feel sad.
Alex stated he had to write standards or stand in the corner when he was disciplined. Alex was also physically disciplined by his mother. Also, Alex was disciplined by the father. Alex’s clothes were removed when he was being hit. In February 2010, Alex did not turn in his homework. As a result, Alex was struck by the father. Alex was afraid when he was being hit and did not sleep well at night.
The father stated, on April 22, 2010, L.K. was told to stand in the corner. This occurred after L.K. was accused of taking a watch at school. The next morning L.K. lied to Alex about something. This prompted the father to physically discipline L.K. As related by L.K., he was ordered take off his clothes prior to being disciplined. When L.K. attempted to run, he ran into a wall and sustained a gash and bump on his head. The father ordered, “[G]et your ass up and get your clothes on.” The father then took L.K. to school. A school employee telephoned 45 minutes later and stated L.K. had to be picked up. He had an injury to his head. With regard to the incident where L.K. took money from an aunt, the father admitted bruises could have been inflicted. But the father asserted this was the case because L.K. has a light complexion.
The father denied liking to physically discipline L.K. all the time. The father said he does not like to hit the children. He tries to talk to them, have them stand in the corner or require the children write standards. The detention report states: “[The f]ather stated he would rather discipline him and teach him not to steal and lie than have him incarcerated or killed by the police. [The f]ather signed a safety plan [indicating] he would not physically discipline the children with objects.” The father, admitted calling L.K. a “punk.” This only occurred when L.K. lied about something and did not “own up” to what he did.
The reporting party, who is not otherwise identified in the detention report but appears to be a teacher, stated that in April 2010, L.K. appeared afraid. When L.K. was questioned, he initially said he tripped and bumped his head. In addition to a bump and gash on his head, L.K. had scratches and bruising on his back. The detention report relates, “[L.K] then stated his father hit him in the head with the belt.” The reporting party stated L.K. was in her class the prior school year. She noticed that, when L.K. misbehaved, he would be afraid because he knew he was going to get into trouble. She knew the father was very strict. School personnel decided to call the father so L.K. could be taken to an urgent care facility due to the gash on the head. The father did not seek medical attention for the injury because L.K. did not complain of dizziness or anything.
On May 12, 2010, the parents attended a team decision-making meeting. At the meeting, it was decided that the father would receive family reunification services for Laila and L.K. The mother would receive family maintenance services. The father agreed to move out of the home as soon as possible. L.K. would remain in the home until he could reunify with his mother. The father, who was self-employed, could come into the home to work but not while the children were present. The father would have monitored daily two-hour visits outside the home. The father would receive an upfront assessment and take parenting classes. The family would receive wraparound services. The father stated he was willing to receive services so that he could reunite with his family.
B. Last Minute Information Report
On May 24, 2010, the department filed a Last Minute Information for the Court document. The mother explained that she had moved to Alabama in 2008 to seek employment. The mother had every intention of taking L.K. with her to Alabama. A few days before she left, the father filed papers with the family law court which, in her view, prohibited her from leaving the state with L.K. The mother appeared in a family law court proceeding and agreed to modify the joint custody order so L.K. was placed in the father’s primary care and could visit her every summer.
The mother was gainfully employed and living with her two teenage sons. The mother had no involvement with child protective services agencies in Alabama or California. The department discovered two unfounded referrals in California which listed the father as the perpetrator. The department was not opposed to placing L.K. with the mother. This was because the mother had no criminal history, no involvement with children protective services agencies and she was a non-offending parent.
On May 21, 2010, L.K. was interviewed. L.K. had recently visited the mother which he described as good. L.K. stated, “I like being with my mom because we play games and I really missed everyone.” When asked how he felt when he saw the mother at the detention hearing, L.K. responded: “I was so happy. I was hugging her and hugging her. I just started crying and my dad said ‘what’s wrong with you, cut it out.’ He was yelling at me because I missed my mom.” When he was yelled at like that, L.K. felt bad. L.K. added, “I just want to go with my mom.” L.K. explained that he wanted to live with his mother. L.K. stated: “I would really love to live with my mom but my dad won’t let me. I can go visit her in the summertime but I can’t live with her.”
L.K. related that “Shay Shay” (the father’s former cohabitant, Lashaye) had spanked him “yesterday” when he was asked the last time he had been disciplined. L.K. said she “whooped” him with a belt because she said he disrespected her. L.K. said she hit him on the back and legs but he did not see a bruise. L.K. stated that he felt safe at home “sometimes.” L.K. did not feel safe when he got into trouble, which occurred regularly. L.K. was afraid of the father and Lashaye. L.K. explained why he was afraid: “I’m just tired of getting hit. I get hit with belts and back scratchers and I just don’t want to get hit all the time. Can I go with you because if I go home, I’m going to get hit again?” When asked where he wanted to go, L.K. said, “I want to go to my mom’s house, but I know I can’t so I’ll go anywhere but home.”
L.K. was released to the custody of the maternal grandmother, D.C. A department social worker assessed the maternal grandmother’s home. L.K. stated: “My grandma is the best grandmother ever. She is so fun to be with and she talks to me about anything I want to talk about. She really loves me. My mom and my grandma really love me.” The department social worker did not oppose releasing L.K. to the maternal grandmother’s home.
The father was advised L.K. was placed in the maternal grandmother’s home. The father, who was upset by the news, stated, “Just let him go with his mother to Alabama.” The father claimed to have visited L.K. the previous day. When the father was asked where the visit occurred, the father said, “I meant to say I dropped him off at home.” The father was reminded that L.K. could not be in the home.
The father later called the social worker asked if it was possible to talk to L.K. The father was told that questioning L.K. was not allowed because it was considered a form of intimidation. The father stated, “I just want to know how all this came up.” The father stated that other people in the house would state L.K. had not been hit the previous day.
The father admitted yelling at L.K. child at the detention hearing. The father stated: “Yes I did. He was sitting there crying so I told him to cut it out.” The social worker recommended monitored visits for the father. This was due to the on-going emotional abuse and intimidation of L.K.
C. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
The Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, filed June 23, 2010, restates many facts set forth in the detention and last minute information documents. This summary of that June 23, 2010 report will only synthesize newly developed facts. By June 2010, L.K. was residing with the mother. The mother had returned to California for the court date. The mother and father have submitted to mediation. The mother regretted the fact that L.K. was going through the dependency process.
The mother stated the father abused her while she was pregnant. The father choked and punched her. The mother stated she had no idea L.K. was being abused in California while she lived in Alabama. The mother would never have left L.K. in the father’s care if she knew the abuse would have occurred. The mother did not know the father had a domestic violence history including the beatings of children until this case. The mother stated that if she had all the information, she would have returned to the family law court to obtain custody of L.K.
On May 21, 2010, the social worker, Lashawn Lenbird, observed the father leaving the family home. The father explained that he was visiting the children outside the home. The father admitted he whipped his children. He explained that was how he was brought up and was the way he raised his children. According to the father, he did not know that it was against the law to discipline children with a belt. The father was asked how that could be possible since he had a prior case history for physically abusing children. The father replied: “[T]hat’s in my past. I resolved all that and the courts said that it wasn’t true and they threw it out.” The father was informed that the cases were not dismissed and the petitions had been sustained which meant the allegations were found to be true. According to the father, “[I]t was in the past.”
The father also accused L.K. of lying about Lashaye. (As noted, Lashaye was the father’s former cohabitant.) In the father’s view, L.K. wanted to be with the mother and was willing to lie to achieve that end. The father was told L.K. was initially placed with the maternal grandmother. The father said: “Oh, that’s all they wanted in the beginning, as long as he is not with the mother, I’m fine. The mother abandoned him and don’t care about him, so I don’t want him with her at all.” The father was told the juvenile court was assessing L.K. for placement with the mother in Alabama. The father replied, “I know, I was in court and I’m sure she will get him, but just so you know, I don’t want him with her, and if there is anything I can do to stop it I will do it.” The father stated he had the maternal grandmother’s telephone number. As previously explained, at this time, L.K. was placed with the maternal grandmother. When the subject of visiting or talking to L.K. was raised, the father said, “I don’t want to talk to him or visit him right now.” At another point, the father stated, “I don’t know if I want him back.”
Lashaye denied hitting L.K. She said L.K. was lying. Lashaye hoped L.K. would go to Alabama to live with his mother. Lashaye said she did not want to deal with L.K.’s lies anymore. Lashaye denied that the father was in the home on May 21, 2010. Ms. Lenbird stated she had seen the father exit the home. In response, Lashaye stated the father was on the porch but not in the home. Although the father stated he was visiting the children in front of the home, Lashaye responded that he had not. She did not know why the father would say that. Lashaye explained the father took the children to school and picked up them up from school where he was a volunteer. Because L.K. was gone, Lashaye said the father should be allowed back into the home.
L.K. was an above average student who appeared intelligent for his age. The mother recently enrolled the child in counseling services because he was having nightmares. The nightmares involved being beaten by the father. On May 17, 2010, L.K. stated: “I don’t want to go back to my dad. I want to go with my mom.” L.K. did not want speak to the father.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Custody Order
The father challenges the juvenile court order granting sole legal custody of L.K. to the mother. A juvenile court may terminate jurisdiction, when it has placed a dependent child with a noncustodial parent and finds that judicial supervision is no longer necessary. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.695; In re Sarah M. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1486, 1495, 1496, disapproved on a different point in In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 204.) When the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction, it has the authority to order the custodial parent have sole legal custody based upon the best interests of the child. (§§ 304, 362.4; In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 713-714.) We review a custody determination for an abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319; Bridget A. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 285, 300-301; Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863.) Custody determinations are not disturbed in a dependency proceeding in the absence of an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd exercise of discretion. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319; Bridget A. v. Superior Court, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 300-301.)
Section 361.2, subdivision (a) provides in part: “When a court orders removal of a child pursuant to Section 361, the court shall first determine whether there is a parent of the child, with whom the child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300, who desires to assume custody of the child. If that parent requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” Section 361, subdivision (b) provides in part: “If the court places the child with that parent it may do any of the following: [¶] (1) Order that the parent become legal and physical custodian of the child. The court may also provide reasonable visitation by the noncustodial parent. The court shall then terminate its jurisdiction over the child. The custody order shall continue unless modified by a subsequent order of the superior court. The order of the juvenile court shall be filed in any domestic relation proceeding between the parents.”
Under section 361.2, subdivision (a), a parent’s noncustodial status entitles him or her to custody unless the juvenile court makes a finding it would be detrimental to the child’s well-being. (In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 970; R.S. v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1271; In re Austin P. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1134-1135.) The juvenile court found the mother was a parent with whom L.K. was not residing at the time the petition was filed. The juvenile court found placement with the mother would not be detrimental to L.K.’s safety, protection and physical and emotional well-being. The juvenile court’s order is consistent with section 361.
The father nevertheless argues the juvenile court’s order must be set aside because there is an insufficient basis to support the order granting the mother sole legal custody. We note the father is correct that the juvenile court did not recite the reasons for the order. But, no abuse of discretion occurred because the record supports the implicit findings that sole custody was appropriate. (In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 297-298; In re Basilio T. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 155, 171.) The father has a lengthy record of child maltreatment, which includes physical and emotional abuse of several of his children. The father also has a history of abusing his female companions and their children. L.K. was regularly whipped with a belt on his bare buttocks and legs. The whippings caused bruises and marks on L.K. The father hit L.K. on the head with a belt. The belt caused a bruise and laceration on L.K.’s head. The father claimed L.K. ran into a wall trying to avoid the belt. Yet, the father did not seek medical attention for L.K. Rather, the father swore at L.K. and drove the child to school. Then school officials called the father and indicated L.K.’s head wound needed attention. The father chose not to seek medical attention. The father admitted belittling and yelling at L.K. for crying during a visit with the mother.
B. The Visitation Order
The father also asserts the juvenile court’s visitation order must be set aside. When the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction, it has authority determine a parent’s visitation rights with the child. (§ 362.4; In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1122-1123.) In making the visitation order, the juvenile court must look to the best interests of the child. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 50-51; In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961 at pp. 973-974; In re Moriah T. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1374; In re Jennifer R., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 712.) The Court of Appeal has explained, “While visitation is a key element of reunification, the court must focus on the best interests of the children “‘and on the elimination of conditions which led to the juvenile court’s finding that the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, harm specified in section 300.’” (In re Julie M., supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 50 quoting In re Moriah T., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 1376.) A visitation order determining the best interests of a dependent child may be reversed only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067; In re Shawna M. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1690.)
The visitation order at issue states: “Father is to have supervised day visits either the last Saturday of Sunday of every month. The frequency of visits can be modified upon agreement by the parents. Parents shall also arrange visitation at the recommendation of the child’s therapist.” The father challenges this order as an improper delegation of authority to the therapist. The authority to determine the right and extent of visitation resides with the juvenile court and cannot be delegated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.700; In re T.H., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1123; In re Donnovan J. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1476.) However, the juvenile court can delegate to private parties the details of visits such as time, place and manner. (In re T.H., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 1123; In re Moriah T., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 1374.)
The juvenile court did not improperly delegate visitation issues to the therapist. The juvenile court order clearly provides that supervised visitation is to occur on either the last Saturday or Sunday of the month. The frequency of the visitation could be modified by agreement of the parents. Furthermore, the visitation order does not allow the therapist to, in effect, veto the father’s right to visit L.K. No doubt, the parents were directed to arrange visitation at the recommendation of the L.K.’s therapist. But that does not mean the therapist had the right to prohibit or otherwise regulate visitation. No doubt, the therapist language was added to address the case issues which included physical and emotional abuse. It also included L.K.’s reluctance to be around the father who continued to emotionally abuse the child throughout the proceeding. Upon termination of jurisdiction, a juvenile court is authorized to issue orders, which are necessary to minimize, if not eliminate, the dangers of the same risk of physical or mental abuse that led to the dependency adjudication. (§§ 362.4 & 362, subd. (c); In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 204 [visitation order made contingent upon facilitation of child’s therapist upheld because, depending upon the circumstances, a juvenile court has discretion to simply deny any visits to a parent].) L.K. had no desire to communicate with the father. L.K. was having nightmares about being beaten by the father. L.K. was currently in play therapy designed to address a number of the child’s issues raised by the father’s physical and emotional abuse. It is clear the juvenile court order directing the parents to consider the therapist’s recommendation about the father’s mandated visits was not a delegation of the right to regulate visitation. Rather, the juvenile court could reasonably attempt to minimize the emotional abuse of L.K. by having the parents consider the therapist’s recommendations. Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude the order directing the parents to facilitate the visits upon the therapist’s recommendation was an abuse of discretion. (In re Chantal S., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 214; In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319.)
IV. DISPOSITION
The orders granting the mother sole legal and physical custody and the father supervised visitation as part of the termination order are affirmed in all respects.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, J., KRIEGLER, J.